3 ms·

Give me sources, or I'll say you're just plain wrong. Conduct that amounts to war crimes will amount to an offence either under the Defence Force Discipline Ac

Give me sources, or I'll say you're just plain wrong. Conduct that amounts to war crimes will amount to an offence either under the Defence Force Discipline Act or under civilian law - ADFIS and AFP do investigate this stuff, though admittedly they haven't had much luck recently with actually charging or convicting anyone, but the same can be said of any other country currently in Iraq. I'd find it hard to believe that Australia is any worse than the US, honestly. (FWIW I'll allow that parliamentary scrutiny of the ADF is probably not as stringent as in the US Congress.) In this case, the police are using their Controlled Operations authority that was originally granted to allow police to conduct drug importations as part of sting operations. Other jurisdictions do have some analogous laws, though potentially not with such broad scope.

fit2rule 9y ago
Pop quiz: why doesn't the ADF ever have to report its civilian casualties to the nation? Oh wait, you answered it: >parliamentary scrutiny of the ADF is probably not as stringent as in the US Congress. Australian Constitution, Section 68: "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the Queen’s representative." (NB; the Australian Constitution is an embarrassment to the Australian people - it is categorically the worst constitution of all modern western democracies...) Here, Scott Ludlum explains the situation pretty well: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/the-australian-parliament-must-have-the-power-to-decide-if-we-go-to-war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/the-au... ".. Australia has remained anchored to a pre-democratic tradition founded in hereditary monarchies and feudal states." Curious readers might like to know more about Australias' war crimes in the middle east, and the extent to which its politicians will go to keep the truth from the Australian people: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/adf-investigative-reports-on-afghan-civilian-deaths-kept-secret/news-story/7008f627585bd2f010c27ddf616ac9d4 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/adf... https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/australias-unreasonable-silence-about-civilian-casualties-in-syria-and-iraq,10165 https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/australias-... Australia committed war crimes in Mosul, and in Raqqa - this is known by anyone who cares to investigate the matter. It is not reporting these crimes, because its forces are not required to by the Australian people, and its politicians are cowardly hiding the truth, because they know that the Australian people will be held liable for these crimes...
- skissane 9y ago
  > the Australian Constitution is an embarrassment to the Australian people - it is categorically the worst constitution of all modern western democracies... You really think so? I agree with you that there are many deficiencies in the Australian constitution, plus a national tradition of constitutional conservatism which means most attempts to address these deficiencies are doomed to fail. But in calling it "categorically the worst", I think you go too far. I think the (unwritten) UK constitution is worse. Similar to the US Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia has the power to overrule the Australian Parliament and nullify unconstitutional legislation, even though it uses that power somewhat sparingly. By contrast, the UK Parliament is "sovereign", which means the courts cannot overrule Parliament. The UK courts effectively have the power to strike down primary legislation contrary to EU law, but with Brexit that power is going away. They also have the power to issue a "declaration of incompatibility" saying that legislation violates human rights, but that does not by itself void the legislation – either Parliament must act to amend or repeal the legislation, or there is also a fast track procedure whereby ministers can amend it without going to Parliament, but until either Parliament or the ministers act the legislation stays in force. (Also, Parliament granted the courts this power, and can take it away at any time by a simple majority vote in each House.) I think another way the Australian constitution is superior to the UK constitution is that the Australian constitution bans the national government from establishing a religion (the ban doesn't strictly speaking apply to the state governments, but in practice they abide by it), whereas the UK constitution establishes a state church in one of its four constituent countries (England). Also, the UK Parliament has in theory unlimited power to overrule or even abolish the devolved administrations (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) at any time, by a simple majority vote (even though real world political constraints mean that trying to use that power could easily lead to the violent breakup of the UK). By contrast, the Australian Parliament can't legally abolish the states without a national referendum which would be very unlikely to pass.
  - fit2rule 9y ago
    The reason I think its heinous: one rule for whites, another set for Torres-Straight Islanders/Original Occupants. Racism is intrinsically encoded in Australian law and Australians unwillingness to do anything about it is a sheer and utter embarrassment to the enlightened world. The UK, in my opinion, is a totalitarian state and has no pretense to being a free society - so yeah, I don't include it in this set, as you rightfully indicate. Australia is a step above the UK in this respect - as the UK is a highly classist, authoritarian/totalitarian state where a majority of its population live in servitude to feudal lords, it doesn't even pretend to have a Constitution, nor individual rights. Australia does pretend, though, so its just a bit above the UK in that regard ..

fit2rule 9y ago

Pop quiz: why doesn't the ADF ever have to report its civilian casualties to the nation? Oh wait, you answered it: >parliamentary scrutiny of the ADF is probably not as stringent as in the US Congress. Australian Constitution, Section 68: "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the Queen’s representative." (NB; the Australian Constitution is an embarrassment to the Australian people - it is categorically the worst constitution of all modern western democracies...) Here, Scott Ludlum explains the situation pretty well: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/the-australian-parliament-must-have-the-power-to-decide-if-we-go-to-war https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/17/the-au... ".. Australia has remained anchored to a pre-democratic tradition founded in hereditary monarchies and feudal states." Curious readers might like to know more about Australias' war crimes in the middle east, and the extent to which its politicians will go to keep the truth from the Australian people: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/adf-investigative-reports-on-afghan-civilian-deaths-kept-secret/news-story/7008f627585bd2f010c27ddf616ac9d4 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/adf... https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/australias-unreasonable-silence-about-civilian-casualties-in-syria-and-iraq,10165 https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/australias-... Australia committed war crimes in Mosul, and in Raqqa - this is known by anyone who cares to investigate the matter. It is not reporting these crimes, because its forces are not required to by the Australian people, and its politicians are cowardly hiding the truth, because they know that the Australian people will be held liable for these crimes...

skissane 9y ago
> the Australian Constitution is an embarrassment to the Australian people - it is categorically the worst constitution of all modern western democracies... You really think so? I agree with you that there are many deficiencies in the Australian constitution, plus a national tradition of constitutional conservatism which means most attempts to address these deficiencies are doomed to fail. But in calling it "categorically the worst", I think you go too far. I think the (unwritten) UK constitution is worse. Similar to the US Supreme Court, the High Court of Australia has the power to overrule the Australian Parliament and nullify unconstitutional legislation, even though it uses that power somewhat sparingly. By contrast, the UK Parliament is "sovereign", which means the courts cannot overrule Parliament. The UK courts effectively have the power to strike down primary legislation contrary to EU law, but with Brexit that power is going away. They also have the power to issue a "declaration of incompatibility" saying that legislation violates human rights, but that does not by itself void the legislation – either Parliament must act to amend or repeal the legislation, or there is also a fast track procedure whereby ministers can amend it without going to Parliament, but until either Parliament or the ministers act the legislation stays in force. (Also, Parliament granted the courts this power, and can take it away at any time by a simple majority vote in each House.) I think another way the Australian constitution is superior to the UK constitution is that the Australian constitution bans the national government from establishing a religion (the ban doesn't strictly speaking apply to the state governments, but in practice they abide by it), whereas the UK constitution establishes a state church in one of its four constituent countries (England). Also, the UK Parliament has in theory unlimited power to overrule or even abolish the devolved administrations (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) at any time, by a simple majority vote (even though real world political constraints mean that trying to use that power could easily lead to the violent breakup of the UK). By contrast, the Australian Parliament can't legally abolish the states without a national referendum which would be very unlikely to pass.
- fit2rule 9y ago
  The reason I think its heinous: one rule for whites, another set for Torres-Straight Islanders/Original Occupants. Racism is intrinsically encoded in Australian law and Australians unwillingness to do anything about it is a sheer and utter embarrassment to the enlightened world. The UK, in my opinion, is a totalitarian state and has no pretense to being a free society - so yeah, I don't include it in this set, as you rightfully indicate. Australia is a step above the UK in this respect - as the UK is a highly classist, authoritarian/totalitarian state where a majority of its population live in servitude to feudal lords, it doesn't even pretend to have a Constitution, nor individual rights. Australia does pretend, though, so its just a bit above the UK in that regard ..